Community > Politics, Current News & Events

Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next

Topic: The Hatred in the Heart of White America
alleoops Joined Sat 08/06/11 Posts: 10832	Sat 04/27/13 08:52 AM
It was cool and rainy Sunday morning when the bomb ripped through the building. At 10:22, a group of children was just heading into the basement to hear a sermon at the 16th Street Baptist Church in Birmingham, Ala. According to a Washington Post account at the time: Dozens of survivors, their faces dripping blood from the glass that flew out of the church's stained glass windows, staggered around the building in a cloud of white dust raised by the explosion. Four girls were killed. The head of one little girl was found far from her body. Twenty-two others were injured. Wandering through his devastated church, the Rev. John H. Cross found a megaphone and asked the enraged and stunned crowd to disperse. "The Lord is our shepherd," he sobbed, "we shall not want." This week, Congress marked the 50th anniversary of that terror attack by posthumously awarding the Congressional Gold Medal to Denise McNair, Carole Robertson, Addie Mae Collins and Cynthia Wesley. We Americans are not confused about the morality of what happened in Birmingham that September morning in 1963, nor during the Jim Crow era in America generally. We do not hesitate to condemn utterly the behavior and the beliefs of the Ku Klux Klan (the perpetrators of this bombing and others) and their white supremacist fellow travelers. We do not worry that reviling white supremacists and their grotesque deeds will somehow taint all white people. But when it comes to other groups and other motives for the same kind of terrorism — we lose our moral focus. Bill Ayers, Bernadine Dohrn and Kathy Boudin have become honored members of the faculties at leading universities. Ayers is even the friend of the president of the United States. Regarding his own record of setting bombs that kill and dismember innocent people, Ayers told The New York Times on the ironic date of Sept. 11, 2001 that "I feel we didn't do enough ... (there's) a certain eloquence to bombs, a poetry and a pattern from a safe distance." So says a retired "distinguished professor" at the University of Illinois at Chicago. Today, American liberals are obsessed not with terrorism but with the color and ethnicity of terrorists. They can readily enough attribute violent tendencies to groups they dislike — the tea party, for example, which hasn't committed so much as a littering offense. But when it comes to Islamic terrorism, their voices falter. Attorney General Eric Holder, asked whether three attacks on the United States (the underwear bomber, the Times Square bomber and Maj. Nidal Hassan) could be attributed to "Islamic" radicalism, refused to say so. Asked repeatedly whether religious motives played a role, Holder would say only, "there are a variety of reasons why people have taken these actions." Janet Napolitano has been quick to dismiss terror attempts as "one offs." Would Holder and Napolitano say the same about white supremacists? Each one had his own motivations and we can't surmise what those factors were? There is a tendency among many on the left to temper their disgust and indignation at political violence (i.e. terror) if the terrorist is from the "correct" group. "Muslim ... means not being white" Peter Beinert writes in the Daily Beast. Beinert and other liberals imagine that the U.S. is a cauldron of teeming racism with the lid barely kept down. At the first acknowledgment that Islamists (some, but by no means, all of whom are dark skinned) present a continuing threat, the lid will fly off and white American vigilantes, given permission, will start shooting black and brown people on the streets, burning their shops, and bombing mosques. The hatred that Islamism preaches, lauds and inspires is a nuisance, liberals may concede. But the hatred in the heart of "white America" is the greater danger. Mona Charen's column is released once a week. Do you believe her?

krupa Joined Thu 07/03/08 Posts: 18651	Sat 04/27/13 08:59 AM
Too much to read.....it's early. Are we hating whites for being freaked out about the people killing Americans....(who happen to be white) Or are we hating the Moslem culture that declared war on us years ago.....though we don't fight them....cause most of them are cool.

msharmony Joined Mon 08/31/09 Posts: 61041	Sat 04/27/13 09:04 AM
It was cool and rainy Sunday morning when the bomb ripped through the building. At 10:22, a group of children was just heading into the basement to hear a sermon at the 16th Street Baptist Church in Birmingham, Ala. According to a Washington Post account at the time: Dozens of survivors, their faces dripping blood from the glass that flew out of the church's stained glass windows, staggered around the building in a cloud of white dust raised by the explosion. Four girls were killed. The head of one little girl was found far from her body. Twenty-two others were injured. Wandering through his devastated church, the Rev. John H. Cross found a megaphone and asked the enraged and stunned crowd to disperse. "The Lord is our shepherd," he sobbed, "we shall not want." This week, Congress marked the 50th anniversary of that terror attack by posthumously awarding the Congressional Gold Medal to Denise McNair, Carole Robertson, Addie Mae Collins and Cynthia Wesley. We Americans are not confused about the morality of what happened in Birmingham that September morning in 1963, nor during the Jim Crow era in America generally. We do not hesitate to condemn utterly the behavior and the beliefs of the Ku Klux Klan (the perpetrators of this bombing and others) and their white supremacist fellow travelers. We do not worry that reviling white supremacists and their grotesque deeds will somehow taint all white people. But when it comes to other groups and other motives for the same kind of terrorism — we lose our moral focus. Bill Ayers, Bernadine Dohrn and Kathy Boudin have become honored members of the faculties at leading universities. Ayers is even the friend of the president of the United States. Regarding his own record of setting bombs that kill and dismember innocent people, Ayers told The New York Times on the ironic date of Sept. 11, 2001 that "I feel we didn't do enough ... (there's) a certain eloquence to bombs, a poetry and a pattern from a safe distance." So says a retired "distinguished professor" at the University of Illinois at Chicago. Today, American liberals are obsessed not with terrorism but with the color and ethnicity of terrorists. They can readily enough attribute violent tendencies to groups they dislike — the tea party, for example, which hasn't committed so much as a littering offense. But when it comes to Islamic terrorism, their voices falter. Attorney General Eric Holder, asked whether three attacks on the United States (the underwear bomber, the Times Square bomber and Maj. Nidal Hassan) could be attributed to "Islamic" radicalism, refused to say so. Asked repeatedly whether religious motives played a role, Holder would say only, "there are a variety of reasons why people have taken these actions." Janet Napolitano has been quick to dismiss terror attempts as "one offs." Would Holder and Napolitano say the same about white supremacists? Each one had his own motivations and we can't surmise what those factors were? There is a tendency among many on the left to temper their disgust and indignation at political violence (i.e. terror) if the terrorist is from the "correct" group. "Muslim ... means not being white" Peter Beinert writes in the Daily Beast. Beinert and other liberals imagine that the U.S. is a cauldron of teeming racism with the lid barely kept down. At the first acknowledgment that Islamists (some, but by no means, all of whom are dark skinned) present a continuing threat, the lid will fly off and white American vigilantes, given permission, will start shooting black and brown people on the streets, burning their shops, and bombing mosques. The hatred that Islamism preaches, lauds and inspires is a nuisance, liberals may concede. But the hatred in the heart of "white America" is the greater danger. Mona Charen's column is released once a week. Do you believe her? well, I think the author makes an irrelvant point about the color or muslims,, they are all colors, as this past bombing exemplifies but as far as danger, I think the human tendency is to deal with the 'danger' in front of us rather than the one around the road the nature of being an american,, and living in the USA, means we are most closely affected by the racism within our own borders,,,,rather than the hatred others around the world may feel for us we are much more impacted on a much more regular basis by the racism that happens inside our country, than we are by the terrorists who slip in form other countries,,,, so, I dont compare danger as being 'greater', but I feel racism is the most 'present and clear' danger that affects our country,,,

metalwing Joined Fri 11/14/08 Posts: 26218	Sat 04/27/13 09:16 AM
By far, the greatest danger to America is Islamic Radical Terror. Any nine year old can see that. The "politically correct" crowd will continue to spin, spin, spin. Any government with half a brain would close it's borders in face of such a threat. We are dealing with much less than half.

krupa Joined Thu 07/03/08 Posts: 18651	Sat 04/27/13 09:19 AM
By far, the greatest danger to America is Islamic Radical Terror. Any nine year old can see that. The "politically correct" crowd will continue to spin, spin, spin. Any government with half a brain would close it's borders in face of such a threat. We are dealing with much less than half. I gotta agree.

msharmony Joined Mon 08/31/09 Posts: 61041	Sat 04/27/13 09:21 AM
By far, the greatest danger to America is Islamic Radical Terror. Any nine year old can see that. The "politically correct" crowd will continue to spin, spin, spin. Any government with half a brain would close it's borders in face of such a threat. We are dealing with much less than half. islamic radical terror is rare, it just gets sensationalized,,, islamists were behind 9/11 and since then you can count on one hand how many times they have attacked IN AMERICA the majority of their attacks happen in THEIR OWN countries where we are 'visitors' or dignitaries,,,, racism is the much more prevalent issue IN AMERICA,,,,

InvictusV Joined Sun 11/23/08 Posts: 5282	Sat 04/27/13 09:22 AM
It was cool and rainy Sunday morning when the bomb ripped through the building. At 10:22, a group of children was just heading into the basement to hear a sermon at the 16th Street Baptist Church in Birmingham, Ala. According to a Washington Post account at the time: Dozens of survivors, their faces dripping blood from the glass that flew out of the church's stained glass windows, staggered around the building in a cloud of white dust raised by the explosion. Four girls were killed. The head of one little girl was found far from her body. Twenty-two others were injured. Wandering through his devastated church, the Rev. John H. Cross found a megaphone and asked the enraged and stunned crowd to disperse. "The Lord is our shepherd," he sobbed, "we shall not want." This week, Congress marked the 50th anniversary of that terror attack by posthumously awarding the Congressional Gold Medal to Denise McNair, Carole Robertson, Addie Mae Collins and Cynthia Wesley. We Americans are not confused about the morality of what happened in Birmingham that September morning in 1963, nor during the Jim Crow era in America generally. We do not hesitate to condemn utterly the behavior and the beliefs of the Ku Klux Klan (the perpetrators of this bombing and others) and their white supremacist fellow travelers. We do not worry that reviling white supremacists and their grotesque deeds will somehow taint all white people. But when it comes to other groups and other motives for the same kind of terrorism — we lose our moral focus. Bill Ayers, Bernadine Dohrn and Kathy Boudin have become honored members of the faculties at leading universities. Ayers is even the friend of the president of the United States. Regarding his own record of setting bombs that kill and dismember innocent people, Ayers told The New York Times on the ironic date of Sept. 11, 2001 that "I feel we didn't do enough ... (there's) a certain eloquence to bombs, a poetry and a pattern from a safe distance." So says a retired "distinguished professor" at the University of Illinois at Chicago. Today, American liberals are obsessed not with terrorism but with the color and ethnicity of terrorists. They can readily enough attribute violent tendencies to groups they dislike — the tea party, for example, which hasn't committed so much as a littering offense. But when it comes to Islamic terrorism, their voices falter. Attorney General Eric Holder, asked whether three attacks on the United States (the underwear bomber, the Times Square bomber and Maj. Nidal Hassan) could be attributed to "Islamic" radicalism, refused to say so. Asked repeatedly whether religious motives played a role, Holder would say only, "there are a variety of reasons why people have taken these actions." Janet Napolitano has been quick to dismiss terror attempts as "one offs." Would Holder and Napolitano say the same about white supremacists? Each one had his own motivations and we can't surmise what those factors were? There is a tendency among many on the left to temper their disgust and indignation at political violence (i.e. terror) if the terrorist is from the "correct" group. "Muslim ... means not being white" Peter Beinert writes in the Daily Beast. Beinert and other liberals imagine that the U.S. is a cauldron of teeming racism with the lid barely kept down. At the first acknowledgment that Islamists (some, but by no means, all of whom are dark skinned) present a continuing threat, the lid will fly off and white American vigilantes, given permission, will start shooting black and brown people on the streets, burning their shops, and bombing mosques. The hatred that Islamism preaches, lauds and inspires is a nuisance, liberals may concede. But the hatred in the heart of "white America" is the greater danger. Mona Charen's column is released once a week. Do you believe her? well, I think the author makes an irrelvant point about the color or muslims,, they are all colors, as this past bombing exemplifies but as far as danger, I think the human tendency is to deal with the 'danger' in front of us rather than the one around the road the nature of being an american,, and living in the USA, means we are most closely affected by the racism within our own borders,,,,rather than the hatred others around the world may feel for us we are much more impacted on a much more regular basis by the racism that happens inside our country, than we are by the terrorists who slip in form other countries,,,, so, I dont compare danger as being 'greater', but I feel racism is the most 'present and clear' danger that affects our country,,, Racism exists throughout the world. It has always existed and will continue to exist. Humans have never escaped their tribal roots and they will always maintain a comfort zone amongst others that are similar to themselves. No amount of forced diversity or political correctness is going to change human nature.

msharmony Joined Mon 08/31/09 Posts: 61041	Sat 04/27/13 09:24 AM
It was cool and rainy Sunday morning when the bomb ripped through the building. At 10:22, a group of children was just heading into the basement to hear a sermon at the 16th Street Baptist Church in Birmingham, Ala. According to a Washington Post account at the time: Dozens of survivors, their faces dripping blood from the glass that flew out of the church's stained glass windows, staggered around the building in a cloud of white dust raised by the explosion. Four girls were killed. The head of one little girl was found far from her body. Twenty-two others were injured. Wandering through his devastated church, the Rev. John H. Cross found a megaphone and asked the enraged and stunned crowd to disperse. "The Lord is our shepherd," he sobbed, "we shall not want." This week, Congress marked the 50th anniversary of that terror attack by posthumously awarding the Congressional Gold Medal to Denise McNair, Carole Robertson, Addie Mae Collins and Cynthia Wesley. We Americans are not confused about the morality of what happened in Birmingham that September morning in 1963, nor during the Jim Crow era in America generally. We do not hesitate to condemn utterly the behavior and the beliefs of the Ku Klux Klan (the perpetrators of this bombing and others) and their white supremacist fellow travelers. We do not worry that reviling white supremacists and their grotesque deeds will somehow taint all white people. But when it comes to other groups and other motives for the same kind of terrorism — we lose our moral focus. Bill Ayers, Bernadine Dohrn and Kathy Boudin have become honored members of the faculties at leading universities. Ayers is even the friend of the president of the United States. Regarding his own record of setting bombs that kill and dismember innocent people, Ayers told The New York Times on the ironic date of Sept. 11, 2001 that "I feel we didn't do enough ... (there's) a certain eloquence to bombs, a poetry and a pattern from a safe distance." So says a retired "distinguished professor" at the University of Illinois at Chicago. Today, American liberals are obsessed not with terrorism but with the color and ethnicity of terrorists. They can readily enough attribute violent tendencies to groups they dislike — the tea party, for example, which hasn't committed so much as a littering offense. But when it comes to Islamic terrorism, their voices falter. Attorney General Eric Holder, asked whether three attacks on the United States (the underwear bomber, the Times Square bomber and Maj. Nidal Hassan) could be attributed to "Islamic" radicalism, refused to say so. Asked repeatedly whether religious motives played a role, Holder would say only, "there are a variety of reasons why people have taken these actions." Janet Napolitano has been quick to dismiss terror attempts as "one offs." Would Holder and Napolitano say the same about white supremacists? Each one had his own motivations and we can't surmise what those factors were? There is a tendency among many on the left to temper their disgust and indignation at political violence (i.e. terror) if the terrorist is from the "correct" group. "Muslim ... means not being white" Peter Beinert writes in the Daily Beast. Beinert and other liberals imagine that the U.S. is a cauldron of teeming racism with the lid barely kept down. At the first acknowledgment that Islamists (some, but by no means, all of whom are dark skinned) present a continuing threat, the lid will fly off and white American vigilantes, given permission, will start shooting black and brown people on the streets, burning their shops, and bombing mosques. The hatred that Islamism preaches, lauds and inspires is a nuisance, liberals may concede. But the hatred in the heart of "white America" is the greater danger. Mona Charen's column is released once a week. Do you believe her? well, I think the author makes an irrelvant point about the color or muslims,, they are all colors, as this past bombing exemplifies but as far as danger, I think the human tendency is to deal with the 'danger' in front of us rather than the one around the road the nature of being an american,, and living in the USA, means we are most closely affected by the racism within our own borders,,,,rather than the hatred others around the world may feel for us we are much more impacted on a much more regular basis by the racism that happens inside our country, than we are by the terrorists who slip in form other countries,,,, so, I dont compare danger as being 'greater', but I feel racism is the most 'present and clear' danger that affects our country,,, Racism exists throughout the world. It has always existed and will continue to exist. Humans have never escaped their tribal roots and they will always maintain a comfort zone amongst others that are similar to themselves. No amount of forced diversity or political correctness is going to change human nature. the abolishment of slavery and jim crow shows that we can evolve and change 'human nature',,,,,not that we will ever completely rid the world or the usa of racist ideals or perceptions ,, but we can stigmatize racist behavior , actions, words,, and stigma can reduce how often we see things occurring,,,

msharmony Joined Mon 08/31/09 Posts: 61041	Sat 04/27/13 09:25 AM
It was cool and rainy Sunday morning when the bomb ripped through the building. At 10:22, a group of children was just heading into the basement to hear a sermon at the 16th Street Baptist Church in Birmingham, Ala. According to a Washington Post account at the time: Dozens of survivors, their faces dripping blood from the glass that flew out of the church's stained glass windows, staggered around the building in a cloud of white dust raised by the explosion. Four girls were killed. The head of one little girl was found far from her body. Twenty-two others were injured. Wandering through his devastated church, the Rev. John H. Cross found a megaphone and asked the enraged and stunned crowd to disperse. "The Lord is our shepherd," he sobbed, "we shall not want." This week, Congress marked the 50th anniversary of that terror attack by posthumously awarding the Congressional Gold Medal to Denise McNair, Carole Robertson, Addie Mae Collins and Cynthia Wesley. We Americans are not confused about the morality of what happened in Birmingham that September morning in 1963, nor during the Jim Crow era in America generally. We do not hesitate to condemn utterly the behavior and the beliefs of the Ku Klux Klan (the perpetrators of this bombing and others) and their white supremacist fellow travelers. We do not worry that reviling white supremacists and their grotesque deeds will somehow taint all white people. But when it comes to other groups and other motives for the same kind of terrorism — we lose our moral focus. Bill Ayers, Bernadine Dohrn and Kathy Boudin have become honored members of the faculties at leading universities. Ayers is even the friend of the president of the United States. Regarding his own record of setting bombs that kill and dismember innocent people, Ayers told The New York Times on the ironic date of Sept. 11, 2001 that "I feel we didn't do enough ... (there's) a certain eloquence to bombs, a poetry and a pattern from a safe distance." So says a retired "distinguished professor" at the University of Illinois at Chicago. Today, American liberals are obsessed not with terrorism but with the color and ethnicity of terrorists. They can readily enough attribute violent tendencies to groups they dislike — the tea party, for example, which hasn't committed so much as a littering offense. But when it comes to Islamic terrorism, their voices falter. Attorney General Eric Holder, asked whether three attacks on the United States (the underwear bomber, the Times Square bomber and Maj. Nidal Hassan) could be attributed to "Islamic" radicalism, refused to say so. Asked repeatedly whether religious motives played a role, Holder would say only, "there are a variety of reasons why people have taken these actions." Janet Napolitano has been quick to dismiss terror attempts as "one offs." Would Holder and Napolitano say the same about white supremacists? Each one had his own motivations and we can't surmise what those factors were? There is a tendency among many on the left to temper their disgust and indignation at political violence (i.e. terror) if the terrorist is from the "correct" group. "Muslim ... means not being white" Peter Beinert writes in the Daily Beast. Beinert and other liberals imagine that the U.S. is a cauldron of teeming racism with the lid barely kept down. At the first acknowledgment that Islamists (some, but by no means, all of whom are dark skinned) present a continuing threat, the lid will fly off and white American vigilantes, given permission, will start shooting black and brown people on the streets, burning their shops, and bombing mosques. The hatred that Islamism preaches, lauds and inspires is a nuisance, liberals may concede. But the hatred in the heart of "white America" is the greater danger. Mona Charen's column is released once a week. Do you believe her? well, I think the author makes an irrelvant point about the color or muslims,, they are all colors, as this past bombing exemplifies but as far as danger, I think the human tendency is to deal with the 'danger' in front of us rather than the one around the road the nature of being an american,, and living in the USA, means we are most closely affected by the racism within our own borders,,,,rather than the hatred others around the world may feel for us we are much more impacted on a much more regular basis by the racism that happens inside our country, than we are by the terrorists who slip in form other countries,,,, so, I dont compare danger as being 'greater', but I feel racism is the most 'present and clear' danger that affects our country,,, Racism exists throughout the world. It has always existed and will continue to exist. Humans have never escaped their tribal roots and they will always maintain a comfort zone amongst others that are similar to themselves. No amount of forced diversity or political correctness is going to change human nature. the abolishment of slavery and jim crow shows that we can evolve and change 'human nature',,,,,not that we will ever completely rid the world or the usa of racist ideals or perceptions ,, but we can stigmatize racist behavior , actions, words,, and stigma can reduce how often we see things occurring,,,

krupa Joined Thu 07/03/08 Posts: 18651	Sat 04/27/13 09:29 AM
It was cool and rainy Sunday morning when the bomb ripped through the building. At 10:22, a group of children was just heading into the basement to hear a sermon at the 16th Street Baptist Church in Birmingham, Ala. According to a Washington Post account at the time: Dozens of survivors, their faces dripping blood from the glass that flew out of the church's stained glass windows, staggered around the building in a cloud of white dust raised by the explosion. Four girls were killed. The head of one little girl was found far from her body. Twenty-two others were injured. Wandering through his devastated church, the Rev. John H. Cross found a megaphone and asked the enraged and stunned crowd to disperse. "The Lord is our shepherd," he sobbed, "we shall not want." This week, Congress marked the 50th anniversary of that terror attack by posthumously awarding the Congressional Gold Medal to Denise McNair, Carole Robertson, Addie Mae Collins and Cynthia Wesley. We Americans are not confused about the morality of what happened in Birmingham that September morning in 1963, nor during the Jim Crow era in America generally. We do not hesitate to condemn utterly the behavior and the beliefs of the Ku Klux Klan (the perpetrators of this bombing and others) and their white supremacist fellow travelers. We do not worry that reviling white supremacists and their grotesque deeds will somehow taint all white people. But when it comes to other groups and other motives for the same kind of terrorism — we lose our moral focus. Bill Ayers, Bernadine Dohrn and Kathy Boudin have become honored members of the faculties at leading universities. Ayers is even the friend of the president of the United States. Regarding his own record of setting bombs that kill and dismember innocent people, Ayers told The New York Times on the ironic date of Sept. 11, 2001 that "I feel we didn't do enough ... (there's) a certain eloquence to bombs, a poetry and a pattern from a safe distance." So says a retired "distinguished professor" at the University of Illinois at Chicago. Today, American liberals are obsessed not with terrorism but with the color and ethnicity of terrorists. They can readily enough attribute violent tendencies to groups they dislike — the tea party, for example, which hasn't committed so much as a littering offense. But when it comes to Islamic terrorism, their voices falter. Attorney General Eric Holder, asked whether three attacks on the United States (the underwear bomber, the Times Square bomber and Maj. Nidal Hassan) could be attributed to "Islamic" radicalism, refused to say so. Asked repeatedly whether religious motives played a role, Holder would say only, "there are a variety of reasons why people have taken these actions." Janet Napolitano has been quick to dismiss terror attempts as "one offs." Would Holder and Napolitano say the same about white supremacists? Each one had his own motivations and we can't surmise what those factors were? There is a tendency among many on the left to temper their disgust and indignation at political violence (i.e. terror) if the terrorist is from the "correct" group. "Muslim ... means not being white" Peter Beinert writes in the Daily Beast. Beinert and other liberals imagine that the U.S. is a cauldron of teeming racism with the lid barely kept down. At the first acknowledgment that Islamists (some, but by no means, all of whom are dark skinned) present a continuing threat, the lid will fly off and white American vigilantes, given permission, will start shooting black and brown people on the streets, burning their shops, and bombing mosques. The hatred that Islamism preaches, lauds and inspires is a nuisance, liberals may concede. But the hatred in the heart of "white America" is the greater danger. Mona Charen's column is released once a week. Do you believe her? well, I think the author makes an irrelvant point about the color or muslims,, they are all colors, as this past bombing exemplifies but as far as danger, I think the human tendency is to deal with the 'danger' in front of us rather than the one around the road the nature of being an american,, and living in the USA, means we are most closely affected by the racism within our own borders,,,,rather than the hatred others around the world may feel for us we are much more impacted on a much more regular basis by the racism that happens inside our country, than we are by the terrorists who slip in form other countries,,,, so, I dont compare danger as being 'greater', but I feel racism is the most 'present and clear' danger that affects our country,,, Tell it to the dead.

mightymoe Joined Sun 11/19/06 Posts: 37362	Sat 04/27/13 09:29 AM
It was cool and rainy Sunday morning when the bomb ripped through the building. At 10:22, a group of children was just heading into the basement to hear a sermon at the 16th Street Baptist Church in Birmingham, Ala. According to a Washington Post account at the time: Dozens of survivors, their faces dripping blood from the glass that flew out of the church's stained glass windows, staggered around the building in a cloud of white dust raised by the explosion. Four girls were killed. The head of one little girl was found far from her body. Twenty-two others were injured. Wandering through his devastated church, the Rev. John H. Cross found a megaphone and asked the enraged and stunned crowd to disperse. "The Lord is our shepherd," he sobbed, "we shall not want." This week, Congress marked the 50th anniversary of that terror attack by posthumously awarding the Congressional Gold Medal to Denise McNair, Carole Robertson, Addie Mae Collins and Cynthia Wesley. We Americans are not confused about the morality of what happened in Birmingham that September morning in 1963, nor during the Jim Crow era in America generally. We do not hesitate to condemn utterly the behavior and the beliefs of the Ku Klux Klan (the perpetrators of this bombing and others) and their white supremacist fellow travelers. We do not worry that reviling white supremacists and their grotesque deeds will somehow taint all white people. But when it comes to other groups and other motives for the same kind of terrorism — we lose our moral focus. Bill Ayers, Bernadine Dohrn and Kathy Boudin have become honored members of the faculties at leading universities. Ayers is even the friend of the president of the United States. Regarding his own record of setting bombs that kill and dismember innocent people, Ayers told The New York Times on the ironic date of Sept. 11, 2001 that "I feel we didn't do enough ... (there's) a certain eloquence to bombs, a poetry and a pattern from a safe distance." So says a retired "distinguished professor" at the University of Illinois at Chicago. Today, American liberals are obsessed not with terrorism but with the color and ethnicity of terrorists. They can readily enough attribute violent tendencies to groups they dislike — the tea party, for example, which hasn't committed so much as a littering offense. But when it comes to Islamic terrorism, their voices falter. Attorney General Eric Holder, asked whether three attacks on the United States (the underwear bomber, the Times Square bomber and Maj. Nidal Hassan) could be attributed to "Islamic" radicalism, refused to say so. Asked repeatedly whether religious motives played a role, Holder would say only, "there are a variety of reasons why people have taken these actions." Janet Napolitano has been quick to dismiss terror attempts as "one offs." Would Holder and Napolitano say the same about white supremacists? Each one had his own motivations and we can't surmise what those factors were? There is a tendency among many on the left to temper their disgust and indignation at political violence (i.e. terror) if the terrorist is from the "correct" group. "Muslim ... means not being white" Peter Beinert writes in the Daily Beast. Beinert and other liberals imagine that the U.S. is a cauldron of teeming racism with the lid barely kept down. At the first acknowledgment that Islamists (some, but by no means, all of whom are dark skinned) present a continuing threat, the lid will fly off and white American vigilantes, given permission, will start shooting black and brown people on the streets, burning their shops, and bombing mosques. The hatred that Islamism preaches, lauds and inspires is a nuisance, liberals may concede. But the hatred in the heart of "white America" is the greater danger. Mona Charen's column is released once a week. Do you believe her? well, I think the author makes an irrelvant point about the color or muslims,, they are all colors, as this past bombing exemplifies but as far as danger, I think the human tendency is to deal with the 'danger' in front of us rather than the one around the road the nature of being an american,, and living in the USA, means we are most closely affected by the racism within our own borders,,,,rather than the hatred others around the world may feel for us we are much more impacted on a much more regular basis by the racism that happens inside our country, than we are by the terrorists who slip in form other countries,,,, so, I dont compare danger as being 'greater', but I feel racism is the most 'present and clear' danger that affects our country,,, Racism exists throughout the world. It has always existed and will continue to exist. Humans have never escaped their tribal roots and they will always maintain a comfort zone amongst others that are similar to themselves. No amount of forced diversity or political correctness is going to change human nature. Agreed, there's always a reason to hate someone for something...(seems like religion is top of the list there)...

msharmony Joined Mon 08/31/09 Posts: 61041	Sat 04/27/13 09:32 AM
It was cool and rainy Sunday morning when the bomb ripped through the building. At 10:22, a group of children was just heading into the basement to hear a sermon at the 16th Street Baptist Church in Birmingham, Ala. According to a Washington Post account at the time: Dozens of survivors, their faces dripping blood from the glass that flew out of the church's stained glass windows, staggered around the building in a cloud of white dust raised by the explosion. Four girls were killed. The head of one little girl was found far from her body. Twenty-two others were injured. Wandering through his devastated church, the Rev. John H. Cross found a megaphone and asked the enraged and stunned crowd to disperse. "The Lord is our shepherd," he sobbed, "we shall not want." This week, Congress marked the 50th anniversary of that terror attack by posthumously awarding the Congressional Gold Medal to Denise McNair, Carole Robertson, Addie Mae Collins and Cynthia Wesley. We Americans are not confused about the morality of what happened in Birmingham that September morning in 1963, nor during the Jim Crow era in America generally. We do not hesitate to condemn utterly the behavior and the beliefs of the Ku Klux Klan (the perpetrators of this bombing and others) and their white supremacist fellow travelers. We do not worry that reviling white supremacists and their grotesque deeds will somehow taint all white people. But when it comes to other groups and other motives for the same kind of terrorism — we lose our moral focus. Bill Ayers, Bernadine Dohrn and Kathy Boudin have become honored members of the faculties at leading universities. Ayers is even the friend of the president of the United States. Regarding his own record of setting bombs that kill and dismember innocent people, Ayers told The New York Times on the ironic date of Sept. 11, 2001 that "I feel we didn't do enough ... (there's) a certain eloquence to bombs, a poetry and a pattern from a safe distance." So says a retired "distinguished professor" at the University of Illinois at Chicago. Today, American liberals are obsessed not with terrorism but with the color and ethnicity of terrorists. They can readily enough attribute violent tendencies to groups they dislike — the tea party, for example, which hasn't committed so much as a littering offense. But when it comes to Islamic terrorism, their voices falter. Attorney General Eric Holder, asked whether three attacks on the United States (the underwear bomber, the Times Square bomber and Maj. Nidal Hassan) could be attributed to "Islamic" radicalism, refused to say so. Asked repeatedly whether religious motives played a role, Holder would say only, "there are a variety of reasons why people have taken these actions." Janet Napolitano has been quick to dismiss terror attempts as "one offs." Would Holder and Napolitano say the same about white supremacists? Each one had his own motivations and we can't surmise what those factors were? There is a tendency among many on the left to temper their disgust and indignation at political violence (i.e. terror) if the terrorist is from the "correct" group. "Muslim ... means not being white" Peter Beinert writes in the Daily Beast. Beinert and other liberals imagine that the U.S. is a cauldron of teeming racism with the lid barely kept down. At the first acknowledgment that Islamists (some, but by no means, all of whom are dark skinned) present a continuing threat, the lid will fly off and white American vigilantes, given permission, will start shooting black and brown people on the streets, burning their shops, and bombing mosques. The hatred that Islamism preaches, lauds and inspires is a nuisance, liberals may concede. But the hatred in the heart of "white America" is the greater danger. Mona Charen's column is released once a week. Do you believe her? well, I think the author makes an irrelvant point about the color or muslims,, they are all colors, as this past bombing exemplifies but as far as danger, I think the human tendency is to deal with the 'danger' in front of us rather than the one around the road the nature of being an american,, and living in the USA, means we are most closely affected by the racism within our own borders,,,,rather than the hatred others around the world may feel for us we are much more impacted on a much more regular basis by the racism that happens inside our country, than we are by the terrorists who slip in form other countries,,,, so, I dont compare danger as being 'greater', but I feel racism is the most 'present and clear' danger that affects our country,,, Tell it to the dead. which dead, those dying at the hands of racists in america, or those dying at the hands of muslims in america, or those dying at the hands of people they know? dead is dead,,,,and telling anything to them would not really change the point that racism is more prevalant than radical islamicism in america,,,

InvictusV Joined Sun 11/23/08 Posts: 5282	Sat 04/27/13 09:41 AM
It was cool and rainy Sunday morning when the bomb ripped through the building. At 10:22, a group of children was just heading into the basement to hear a sermon at the 16th Street Baptist Church in Birmingham, Ala. According to a Washington Post account at the time: Dozens of survivors, their faces dripping blood from the glass that flew out of the church's stained glass windows, staggered around the building in a cloud of white dust raised by the explosion. Four girls were killed. The head of one little girl was found far from her body. Twenty-two others were injured. Wandering through his devastated church, the Rev. John H. Cross found a megaphone and asked the enraged and stunned crowd to disperse. "The Lord is our shepherd," he sobbed, "we shall not want." This week, Congress marked the 50th anniversary of that terror attack by posthumously awarding the Congressional Gold Medal to Denise McNair, Carole Robertson, Addie Mae Collins and Cynthia Wesley. We Americans are not confused about the morality of what happened in Birmingham that September morning in 1963, nor during the Jim Crow era in America generally. We do not hesitate to condemn utterly the behavior and the beliefs of the Ku Klux Klan (the perpetrators of this bombing and others) and their white supremacist fellow travelers. We do not worry that reviling white supremacists and their grotesque deeds will somehow taint all white people. But when it comes to other groups and other motives for the same kind of terrorism — we lose our moral focus. Bill Ayers, Bernadine Dohrn and Kathy Boudin have become honored members of the faculties at leading universities. Ayers is even the friend of the president of the United States. Regarding his own record of setting bombs that kill and dismember innocent people, Ayers told The New York Times on the ironic date of Sept. 11, 2001 that "I feel we didn't do enough ... (there's) a certain eloquence to bombs, a poetry and a pattern from a safe distance." So says a retired "distinguished professor" at the University of Illinois at Chicago. Today, American liberals are obsessed not with terrorism but with the color and ethnicity of terrorists. They can readily enough attribute violent tendencies to groups they dislike — the tea party, for example, which hasn't committed so much as a littering offense. But when it comes to Islamic terrorism, their voices falter. Attorney General Eric Holder, asked whether three attacks on the United States (the underwear bomber, the Times Square bomber and Maj. Nidal Hassan) could be attributed to "Islamic" radicalism, refused to say so. Asked repeatedly whether religious motives played a role, Holder would say only, "there are a variety of reasons why people have taken these actions." Janet Napolitano has been quick to dismiss terror attempts as "one offs." Would Holder and Napolitano say the same about white supremacists? Each one had his own motivations and we can't surmise what those factors were? There is a tendency among many on the left to temper their disgust and indignation at political violence (i.e. terror) if the terrorist is from the "correct" group. "Muslim ... means not being white" Peter Beinert writes in the Daily Beast. Beinert and other liberals imagine that the U.S. is a cauldron of teeming racism with the lid barely kept down. At the first acknowledgment that Islamists (some, but by no means, all of whom are dark skinned) present a continuing threat, the lid will fly off and white American vigilantes, given permission, will start shooting black and brown people on the streets, burning their shops, and bombing mosques. The hatred that Islamism preaches, lauds and inspires is a nuisance, liberals may concede. But the hatred in the heart of "white America" is the greater danger. Mona Charen's column is released once a week. Do you believe her? well, I think the author makes an irrelvant point about the color or muslims,, they are all colors, as this past bombing exemplifies but as far as danger, I think the human tendency is to deal with the 'danger' in front of us rather than the one around the road the nature of being an american,, and living in the USA, means we are most closely affected by the racism within our own borders,,,,rather than the hatred others around the world may feel for us we are much more impacted on a much more regular basis by the racism that happens inside our country, than we are by the terrorists who slip in form other countries,,,, so, I dont compare danger as being 'greater', but I feel racism is the most 'present and clear' danger that affects our country,,, Racism exists throughout the world. It has always existed and will continue to exist. Humans have never escaped their tribal roots and they will always maintain a comfort zone amongst others that are similar to themselves. No amount of forced diversity or political correctness is going to change human nature. the abolishment of slavery and jim crow shows that we can evolve and change 'human nature',,,,,not that we will ever completely rid the world or the usa of racist ideals or perceptions ,, but we can stigmatize racist behavior , actions, words,, and stigma can reduce how often we see things occurring,,, slavery and jim crow were not human nature. they were accepted and institutionalized by governments. slavery and jim crow cannot exist without the complicity of government. people of all races arose and said enough is enough. the macro level of racism that was acceptable due to government involvement has passed. the micro level of racism that exists amongst certain individuals that work outside the boundaries of entire groups will never cease regardless of what you do. people preferring to associate within their own race or ethnicity is human nature and will never change.

msharmony Joined Mon 08/31/09 Posts: 61041	Sat 04/27/13 09:44 AM
It was cool and rainy Sunday morning when the bomb ripped through the building. At 10:22, a group of children was just heading into the basement to hear a sermon at the 16th Street Baptist Church in Birmingham, Ala. According to a Washington Post account at the time: Dozens of survivors, their faces dripping blood from the glass that flew out of the church's stained glass windows, staggered around the building in a cloud of white dust raised by the explosion. Four girls were killed. The head of one little girl was found far from her body. Twenty-two others were injured. Wandering through his devastated church, the Rev. John H. Cross found a megaphone and asked the enraged and stunned crowd to disperse. "The Lord is our shepherd," he sobbed, "we shall not want." This week, Congress marked the 50th anniversary of that terror attack by posthumously awarding the Congressional Gold Medal to Denise McNair, Carole Robertson, Addie Mae Collins and Cynthia Wesley. We Americans are not confused about the morality of what happened in Birmingham that September morning in 1963, nor during the Jim Crow era in America generally. We do not hesitate to condemn utterly the behavior and the beliefs of the Ku Klux Klan (the perpetrators of this bombing and others) and their white supremacist fellow travelers. We do not worry that reviling white supremacists and their grotesque deeds will somehow taint all white people. But when it comes to other groups and other motives for the same kind of terrorism — we lose our moral focus. Bill Ayers, Bernadine Dohrn and Kathy Boudin have become honored members of the faculties at leading universities. Ayers is even the friend of the president of the United States. Regarding his own record of setting bombs that kill and dismember innocent people, Ayers told The New York Times on the ironic date of Sept. 11, 2001 that "I feel we didn't do enough ... (there's) a certain eloquence to bombs, a poetry and a pattern from a safe distance." So says a retired "distinguished professor" at the University of Illinois at Chicago. Today, American liberals are obsessed not with terrorism but with the color and ethnicity of terrorists. They can readily enough attribute violent tendencies to groups they dislike — the tea party, for example, which hasn't committed so much as a littering offense. But when it comes to Islamic terrorism, their voices falter. Attorney General Eric Holder, asked whether three attacks on the United States (the underwear bomber, the Times Square bomber and Maj. Nidal Hassan) could be attributed to "Islamic" radicalism, refused to say so. Asked repeatedly whether religious motives played a role, Holder would say only, "there are a variety of reasons why people have taken these actions." Janet Napolitano has been quick to dismiss terror attempts as "one offs." Would Holder and Napolitano say the same about white supremacists? Each one had his own motivations and we can't surmise what those factors were? There is a tendency among many on the left to temper their disgust and indignation at political violence (i.e. terror) if the terrorist is from the "correct" group. "Muslim ... means not being white" Peter Beinert writes in the Daily Beast. Beinert and other liberals imagine that the U.S. is a cauldron of teeming racism with the lid barely kept down. At the first acknowledgment that Islamists (some, but by no means, all of whom are dark skinned) present a continuing threat, the lid will fly off and white American vigilantes, given permission, will start shooting black and brown people on the streets, burning their shops, and bombing mosques. The hatred that Islamism preaches, lauds and inspires is a nuisance, liberals may concede. But the hatred in the heart of "white America" is the greater danger. Mona Charen's column is released once a week. Do you believe her? well, I think the author makes an irrelvant point about the color or muslims,, they are all colors, as this past bombing exemplifies but as far as danger, I think the human tendency is to deal with the 'danger' in front of us rather than the one around the road the nature of being an american,, and living in the USA, means we are most closely affected by the racism within our own borders,,,,rather than the hatred others around the world may feel for us we are much more impacted on a much more regular basis by the racism that happens inside our country, than we are by the terrorists who slip in form other countries,,,, so, I dont compare danger as being 'greater', but I feel racism is the most 'present and clear' danger that affects our country,,, Racism exists throughout the world. It has always existed and will continue to exist. Humans have never escaped their tribal roots and they will always maintain a comfort zone amongst others that are similar to themselves. No amount of forced diversity or political correctness is going to change human nature. the abolishment of slavery and jim crow shows that we can evolve and change 'human nature',,,,,not that we will ever completely rid the world or the usa of racist ideals or perceptions ,, but we can stigmatize racist behavior , actions, words,, and stigma can reduce how often we see things occurring,,, slavery and jim crow were not human nature. they were accepted and institutionalized by governments. slavery and jim crow cannot exist without the complicity of government. people of all races arose and said enough is enough. the macro level of racism that was acceptable due to government involvement has passed. the micro level of racism that exists amongst certain individuals that work outside the boundaries of entire groups will never cease regardless of what you do. people preferring to associate within their own race or ethnicity is human nature and will never change. I will agree to disagree about what 'human nature' is,,, I personally believe racism is learned behavior,,, my personal observation of children who are very young is they just wanted to play with each other,, they saw each other as another 'child' instead of another 'race'.... people seek to belong, they are taught what 'groups' they belong in,,,,,,

willing2 Joined Sun 06/08/08 Posts: 20221	Sat 04/27/13 09:51 AM
As long as Islam is allowed to be radical, we will have groups like the MOI preaching hate an separation.

InvictusV Joined Sun 11/23/08 Posts: 5282	Sat 04/27/13 10:14 AM
It was cool and rainy Sunday morning when the bomb ripped through the building. At 10:22, a group of children was just heading into the basement to hear a sermon at the 16th Street Baptist Church in Birmingham, Ala. According to a Washington Post account at the time: Dozens of survivors, their faces dripping blood from the glass that flew out of the church's stained glass windows, staggered around the building in a cloud of white dust raised by the explosion. Four girls were killed. The head of one little girl was found far from her body. Twenty-two others were injured. Wandering through his devastated church, the Rev. John H. Cross found a megaphone and asked the enraged and stunned crowd to disperse. "The Lord is our shepherd," he sobbed, "we shall not want." This week, Congress marked the 50th anniversary of that terror attack by posthumously awarding the Congressional Gold Medal to Denise McNair, Carole Robertson, Addie Mae Collins and Cynthia Wesley. We Americans are not confused about the morality of what happened in Birmingham that September morning in 1963, nor during the Jim Crow era in America generally. We do not hesitate to condemn utterly the behavior and the beliefs of the Ku Klux Klan (the perpetrators of this bombing and others) and their white supremacist fellow travelers. We do not worry that reviling white supremacists and their grotesque deeds will somehow taint all white people. But when it comes to other groups and other motives for the same kind of terrorism — we lose our moral focus. Bill Ayers, Bernadine Dohrn and Kathy Boudin have become honored members of the faculties at leading universities. Ayers is even the friend of the president of the United States. Regarding his own record of setting bombs that kill and dismember innocent people, Ayers told The New York Times on the ironic date of Sept. 11, 2001 that "I feel we didn't do enough ... (there's) a certain eloquence to bombs, a poetry and a pattern from a safe distance." So says a retired "distinguished professor" at the University of Illinois at Chicago. Today, American liberals are obsessed not with terrorism but with the color and ethnicity of terrorists. They can readily enough attribute violent tendencies to groups they dislike — the tea party, for example, which hasn't committed so much as a littering offense. But when it comes to Islamic terrorism, their voices falter. Attorney General Eric Holder, asked whether three attacks on the United States (the underwear bomber, the Times Square bomber and Maj. Nidal Hassan) could be attributed to "Islamic" radicalism, refused to say so. Asked repeatedly whether religious motives played a role, Holder would say only, "there are a variety of reasons why people have taken these actions." Janet Napolitano has been quick to dismiss terror attempts as "one offs." Would Holder and Napolitano say the same about white supremacists? Each one had his own motivations and we can't surmise what those factors were? There is a tendency among many on the left to temper their disgust and indignation at political violence (i.e. terror) if the terrorist is from the "correct" group. "Muslim ... means not being white" Peter Beinert writes in the Daily Beast. Beinert and other liberals imagine that the U.S. is a cauldron of teeming racism with the lid barely kept down. At the first acknowledgment that Islamists (some, but by no means, all of whom are dark skinned) present a continuing threat, the lid will fly off and white American vigilantes, given permission, will start shooting black and brown people on the streets, burning their shops, and bombing mosques. The hatred that Islamism preaches, lauds and inspires is a nuisance, liberals may concede. But the hatred in the heart of "white America" is the greater danger. Mona Charen's column is released once a week. Do you believe her? well, I think the author makes an irrelvant point about the color or muslims,, they are all colors, as this past bombing exemplifies but as far as danger, I think the human tendency is to deal with the 'danger' in front of us rather than the one around the road the nature of being an american,, and living in the USA, means we are most closely affected by the racism within our own borders,,,,rather than the hatred others around the world may feel for us we are much more impacted on a much more regular basis by the racism that happens inside our country, than we are by the terrorists who slip in form other countries,,,, so, I dont compare danger as being 'greater', but I feel racism is the most 'present and clear' danger that affects our country,,, Racism exists throughout the world. It has always existed and will continue to exist. Humans have never escaped their tribal roots and they will always maintain a comfort zone amongst others that are similar to themselves. No amount of forced diversity or political correctness is going to change human nature. the abolishment of slavery and jim crow shows that we can evolve and change 'human nature',,,,,not that we will ever completely rid the world or the usa of racist ideals or perceptions ,, but we can stigmatize racist behavior , actions, words,, and stigma can reduce how often we see things occurring,,, slavery and jim crow were not human nature. they were accepted and institutionalized by governments. slavery and jim crow cannot exist without the complicity of government. people of all races arose and said enough is enough. the macro level of racism that was acceptable due to government involvement has passed. the micro level of racism that exists amongst certain individuals that work outside the boundaries of entire groups will never cease regardless of what you do. people preferring to associate within their own race or ethnicity is human nature and will never change. I will agree to disagree about what 'human nature' is,,, I personally believe racism is learned behavior,,, my personal observation of children who are very young is they just wanted to play with each other,, they saw each other as another 'child' instead of another 'race'.... people seek to belong, they are taught what 'groups' they belong in,,,,,, I will also agree to disagree with your examples. Do you think that whites learning diversity and blacks learning about how evil whites were during slavery and jim crow is the kind of learning that will end racism?

msharmony Joined Mon 08/31/09 Posts: 61041	Sat 04/27/13 10:20 AM Edited by msharmony on Sat 04/27/13 10:21 AM
It was cool and rainy Sunday morning when the bomb ripped through the building. At 10:22, a group of children was just heading into the basement to hear a sermon at the 16th Street Baptist Church in Birmingham, Ala. According to a Washington Post account at the time: Dozens of survivors, their faces dripping blood from the glass that flew out of the church's stained glass windows, staggered around the building in a cloud of white dust raised by the explosion. Four girls were killed. The head of one little girl was found far from her body. Twenty-two others were injured. Wandering through his devastated church, the Rev. John H. Cross found a megaphone and asked the enraged and stunned crowd to disperse. "The Lord is our shepherd," he sobbed, "we shall not want." This week, Congress marked the 50th anniversary of that terror attack by posthumously awarding the Congressional Gold Medal to Denise McNair, Carole Robertson, Addie Mae Collins and Cynthia Wesley. We Americans are not confused about the morality of what happened in Birmingham that September morning in 1963, nor during the Jim Crow era in America generally. We do not hesitate to condemn utterly the behavior and the beliefs of the Ku Klux Klan (the perpetrators of this bombing and others) and their white supremacist fellow travelers. We do not worry that reviling white supremacists and their grotesque deeds will somehow taint all white people. But when it comes to other groups and other motives for the same kind of terrorism — we lose our moral focus. Bill Ayers, Bernadine Dohrn and Kathy Boudin have become honored members of the faculties at leading universities. Ayers is even the friend of the president of the United States. Regarding his own record of setting bombs that kill and dismember innocent people, Ayers told The New York Times on the ironic date of Sept. 11, 2001 that "I feel we didn't do enough ... (there's) a certain eloquence to bombs, a poetry and a pattern from a safe distance." So says a retired "distinguished professor" at the University of Illinois at Chicago. Today, American liberals are obsessed not with terrorism but with the color and ethnicity of terrorists. They can readily enough attribute violent tendencies to groups they dislike — the tea party, for example, which hasn't committed so much as a littering offense. But when it comes to Islamic terrorism, their voices falter. Attorney General Eric Holder, asked whether three attacks on the United States (the underwear bomber, the Times Square bomber and Maj. Nidal Hassan) could be attributed to "Islamic" radicalism, refused to say so. Asked repeatedly whether religious motives played a role, Holder would say only, "there are a variety of reasons why people have taken these actions." Janet Napolitano has been quick to dismiss terror attempts as "one offs." Would Holder and Napolitano say the same about white supremacists? Each one had his own motivations and we can't surmise what those factors were? There is a tendency among many on the left to temper their disgust and indignation at political violence (i.e. terror) if the terrorist is from the "correct" group. "Muslim ... means not being white" Peter Beinert writes in the Daily Beast. Beinert and other liberals imagine that the U.S. is a cauldron of teeming racism with the lid barely kept down. At the first acknowledgment that Islamists (some, but by no means, all of whom are dark skinned) present a continuing threat, the lid will fly off and white American vigilantes, given permission, will start shooting black and brown people on the streets, burning their shops, and bombing mosques. The hatred that Islamism preaches, lauds and inspires is a nuisance, liberals may concede. But the hatred in the heart of "white America" is the greater danger. Mona Charen's column is released once a week. Do you believe her? well, I think the author makes an irrelvant point about the color or muslims,, they are all colors, as this past bombing exemplifies but as far as danger, I think the human tendency is to deal with the 'danger' in front of us rather than the one around the road the nature of being an american,, and living in the USA, means we are most closely affected by the racism within our own borders,,,,rather than the hatred others around the world may feel for us we are much more impacted on a much more regular basis by the racism that happens inside our country, than we are by the terrorists who slip in form other countries,,,, so, I dont compare danger as being 'greater', but I feel racism is the most 'present and clear' danger that affects our country,,, Racism exists throughout the world. It has always existed and will continue to exist. Humans have never escaped their tribal roots and they will always maintain a comfort zone amongst others that are similar to themselves. No amount of forced diversity or political correctness is going to change human nature. the abolishment of slavery and jim crow shows that we can evolve and change 'human nature',,,,,not that we will ever completely rid the world or the usa of racist ideals or perceptions ,, but we can stigmatize racist behavior , actions, words,, and stigma can reduce how often we see things occurring,,, slavery and jim crow were not human nature. they were accepted and institutionalized by governments. slavery and jim crow cannot exist without the complicity of government. people of all races arose and said enough is enough. the macro level of racism that was acceptable due to government involvement has passed. the micro level of racism that exists amongst certain individuals that work outside the boundaries of entire groups will never cease regardless of what you do. people preferring to associate within their own race or ethnicity is human nature and will never change. I will agree to disagree about what 'human nature' is,,, I personally believe racism is learned behavior,,, my personal observation of children who are very young is they just wanted to play with each other,, they saw each other as another 'child' instead of another 'race'.... people seek to belong, they are taught what 'groups' they belong in,,,,,, I will also agree to disagree with your examples. Do you think that whites learning diversity and blacks learning about how evil whites were during slavery and jim crow is the kind of learning that will end racism? well, I actually believe the young mind is very easily molded, and if taught those things from a young age the TENDENCY towards racism will decrease but back to the point,, again, the achievable goal here is not 'ending' racism, as racism is so many things on so many levels,, beginning with a belief system and ending in an institutional trend the acheivable goal is 'reducins' the threat of racism in areas of life that americans have come to , for lack of a better word expect merely for being american,,,

metalwing Joined Fri 11/14/08 Posts: 26218	Sat 04/27/13 12:11 PM
By far, the greatest danger to America is Islamic Radical Terror. Any nine year old can see that. The "politically correct" crowd will continue to spin, spin, spin. Any government with half a brain would close it's borders in face of such a threat. We are dealing with much less than half. islamic radical terror is rare, it just gets sensationalized,,, islamists were behind 9/11 and since then you can count on one hand how many times they have attacked IN AMERICA the majority of their attacks happen in THEIR OWN countries where we are 'visitors' or dignitaries,,,, racism is the much more prevalent issue IN AMERICA,,,, How many of the Islamist attacks were stopped in America?

msharmony Joined Mon 08/31/09 Posts: 61041	Sat 04/27/13 12:17 PM
By far, the greatest danger to America is Islamic Radical Terror. Any nine year old can see that. The "politically correct" crowd will continue to spin, spin, spin. Any government with half a brain would close it's borders in face of such a threat. We are dealing with much less than half. islamic radical terror is rare, it just gets sensationalized,,, islamists were behind 9/11 and since then you can count on one hand how many times they have attacked IN AMERICA the majority of their attacks happen in THEIR OWN countries where we are 'visitors' or dignitaries,,,, racism is the much more prevalent issue IN AMERICA,,,, How many of the Islamist attacks were stopped in America? one can only assume

metalwing Joined Fri 11/14/08 Posts: 26218	Sat 04/27/13 12:35 PM
By far, the greatest danger to America is Islamic Radical Terror. Any nine year old can see that. The "politically correct" crowd will continue to spin, spin, spin. Any government with half a brain would close it's borders in face of such a threat. We are dealing with much less than half. islamic radical terror is rare, it just gets sensationalized,,, islamists were behind 9/11 and since then you can count on one hand how many times they have attacked IN AMERICA the majority of their attacks happen in THEIR OWN countries where we are 'visitors' or dignitaries,,,, racism is the much more prevalent issue IN AMERICA,,,, How many of the Islamist attacks were stopped in America? one can only assume No. One can do much more than that. Here are 29 more to count with the fingers on your hand and, had they come to fruition, thousands of people would have been hurt. The FBI is aware that of the ones who get caught, there are many more who are still in the planning stages. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_foiled_Islamic_terrorist_plots_in_the_post-9/11_United_States Everything is not about racism.